DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY AND REGISTRAR
It JJi X U It I
Qu i- .x. S H j- tt. C Q j
I£i xijjjini REoPiiCTIxiG-
Qui RIO Q S P I T A L, n A M I 1 1 B.
a PHESj£MT£ID TO l'tia LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLE
REPORT of COLIB G. SNIDER, Judge of the County
Court of the County of Wentworth, appointed a Commissioner
to enquire into, investigate and report upon the adminis-
tration, management, conduct, discipline and welfare of
the ONTARIO HOSPITAL, Hamilton.
To His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Your Commissioner appointed by Royal
Commission under the Seal of the Province of Ontario
bearing date the twenty-second day of January in the year
of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty to inves-
tigate and report upon the matters hereinbefore mentioned
with such recommenuations as your Commissioner may think
desirable, having taken upon himself the burthen of the
investigation reports as follows :-
On the 11th day of February A. D. 1920
the investigation was commenced at the Ontario Hospital,
Hamilton, and it was finished on the 17th day of February
A. D. 1920. Public notice was given in the Hamilton
Spectator, the Hamilton Herald and the Hamilton Times,
daily newspapers published in the City of Hamilton, call-
ing attention to the issue of the Commission, its purpose
and scope and to the time and place of holding the inves-
tigation and calling on all persons having knowledge of c
charges and matters to be investigated, or which ought
to be investigated, to give information thereof to
your Commissioner or to S. F. Washington K. C. appointed
as Counsel to aid in the presentation and prosecution of
all such charges and matters.
Each charge, complaint and matter coming
within the scope of your Commissioner's authority and which
was brought in any way to his notice was fully investigated,
It is a matter of great satisfaction to
your Commissioner to be able to report that no charge or
complaint was made by any person against the Superintend-
ent, or Assistant Superintenc ent, or against any of the
physicians of the Ontario Hospital at Hamilton. Every
inmate and witness who spoke of these officers said that
they were always attentive -to the inmates and treated
them with kindness and consideration.
The same statement applies to the chief
From the evidence and from personal investiga-
tion and observation which your Commissioner took the
opportunity to make, he is satisfied that the administra-
tion and management of this Hospital is good and worthy
of the confidence of those who have or may have occasi&nn
to have relatives or friends there.
No charge of misconduct or improper conduct,
other than violence towards patients, was made against any
person engaged in any capacity in, or in connection with,
this Ontario Hospital.
There were many charges made and investigated
alleging violent treatment of patients by certain named
attendants and nurses, such as striking with the fist,
slapping, kicking patients and dragging females along the
floor by the hair.
Your Commissioner is quite satisfied from the
evidence of undoubtedly reliable male and female chief
supervising officers and officials and other confirming
facts that such acts of violence towards patients have
not been and are not at all of general or frequent occur-
rence. There undoubtedly have been some occurrences
of violence to patients and it could not reasonably be
expected that among i_0 to GOattendants, selected from
the general run of young men who seek such employment
there would not be here and there one engaged who would
in temper strike a patient who attacked him violently,
striking or biting or trying to choke the attendant in
the struggle to control the patient.
The evidence shows that many insane patients
are very violent, treacherous, sly in attacking other
patients and the attendants. I t isthe duty of the
attendants to prevent or. check these attacks among the
patients, who must be together a great part of the day
time, and to at once seize and remove and isolate the
patient who has become violent. Ho serious injury was
caused a patient by an attendant in any case. One atten-
dant said he had seen twenty to thirty Rights start between
patients in a day in Ward 8. (Refractory)
The discipline of the employees appears
satisfactory upon the whole and it was shewn by the evidence
of complainants and witnesses that whenever a complaint
has been made to the Superintendent or to the doctor in
charge of a ward or other chief officer the matter of the
complaint has been properly investigated and remedied.
?or minor offences a fine is inflicted and for serious
offences such as acts of unnecessary violence the offender
is dismissed. Where this practice is properly and
vigorously followed and enforced as it has been so far as
the evidence shews, no better means of enforcing proper
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
Ontario Council of University Libraries
discipline was suggested.
I t must be remembered that a very considerable
number of the most experienced and reliable attendants
joined the Canadian Army and went rcerseas, and it was
impossible during the continuance of the war, when so many
of the best young Canadian men were Overseas, to secure
from among those remaining at home substitute attendants
who were all quite satisfactory. Several attendants
who were taken on during this time had to be dismissed
for drinking and for rough treatment of patients.
At different times during the war there were
not enough attendants obtainable to properly man the wards,
and the nurses were and still are over twenty short of
the number required.
To enforce discipline among the attendants
and nurses and to ensure the welfare of the patients there
are three chief attendants between whom are divided all
the male wards, a certain number being assigned to each.
The three chief attendants are James Slater, there 35
years,- Michael Dean, there 20 years, and Julius A. Halbhans,
there 16 years. On the female wards, Margaret O'Donnell,
superintendent of all nurses in the Hospital, returned to
this Hospital after three years work of nursing wounded
soldiers in the Military Hospitals in England and France,
has been discharging her duties in this Ontario Hospital
since 1910, excepting the three years spent with oujr Army
Overseas,- Nurse Isabella LlcI.Iillan is head nurse over those
in the main building,- ITurse Jane Aikins is acting chief
attendant in rchard House, and ^rs. H. E. Robertson, a
widow, is supervisor of nurses in Orchard house, the Infir-
mary and the Shack, where she has been engaged for the
past 16 years.
Helying on his experience in judging character and
fitness from appearances, manner and examination, your
Commissioner reports that he is of opinion that these Chief
officers, both male and female, most of whom appeared before
him, are well suited for their duties and are truly inter-
ested in the proper discharge of their duties and the wel-
fare of the patients.
It was proved that all these Chief officers
devote their whole attention to their work in and about the
houses and wards under their respective care. Under these
Chief officers there are, as far as they can be obtained,
two or three attendants in each male ward and two or three
nurses in each female ward, all on duty in their respective
wards throughout the whole day.
Each house has its own physician in charge
of the wards in it, who makes one morning visit and inspec-
tion of each ward under his care and of each inmate of it
at a regular hour and at irregular hours through the day
makes unexpected visits as his other duties to his sick
inmates, etc., will permit.
This staff has charge of some 1250 insane
persons, a number of them insane criminals sent here from
the penitentiary at Kingston and from other prisons and
towns. A much larger number are refractory, treacherous,
dangerous patients, who take advantage of an opportunity
to pinch, kick, or knock down a fellow-patient or an atten-
dant, and thus start trouble in the ward.
Scenes of which the following is a sample
are frerauent and shew the difficulties attendants are
faced with and in the opinion of your Commissioner, when
viewed by patients looking on and in some cases taking part,
are the foundation of many exaggerated charges that have
been made. On one occasion at dinner in the dining-room,
where the violent men, patients of Ward 8, the refractory
17ard, were dining, a patient, whose name I need not mention,
suddenly and without apparent cause struck the patient
beside him in thenface with his fist a severe blow. This
patient told me he was led to strike this man and others
on many occasions by the stronger will of some person some-
where entering into him q.nd suggesting to him that he should
strike and in fact compelling him to do so for no reason
that he knew of. The man who received the blow imme-
diately started to fight his attacker. All became more or
less excited and disturbed. Two of the attendants present
had to take this man out at once to prevent a general
fight among these excited and dangerous inmates, who armed
with the dishes and glasses on the table could have done
grave injury to each other. The other attendant tried to
quiet those in the room. The man being removed fought,
kicked, struck and did everything he could to resist being
removed to his own room. The charge arising out of this
incident is specially dealt with later in this report.
^n further reference to the welfare of the
patients inthis Hospital your Commissioner reports that
one male and one female witness complained of the soup and
of general shortage of food, medecines and medical supplies
during the war. The man making these charges was an
ex-attendant. As regards the soup, it was proved by the
Chef, the attendants and patients now there, that the
soup and other food has been and is good and this charge
not true, that the attendants and other employees eat the
same food and soup out of the same pot, etc., as the patients
are given, but it is true that in 1915 or 1916 an expert
dietician, named Granger, was sent here by the Department
and he ordered the food allowed to be cut down considerably,
which was done until by order of the Department it was
increased again. His evident exaggeration of events and
his manner of giving his testimony gave the impression that
this man's statements, which were contradicted by reliable
witnesses, were to a certain extent animated by malice
and an exaggerated idea of his ability to judge what mede-
cines and dressings the various patients ought to have been
given by the doctor in charge. The woman ex-patient, who
condemned the food, did not attend. She was subpoenaed
but said she would not come.
Many specific charges of violent and cruel
treatment of inmates were made by discharged patients against
attendants in the wards for male patients and against nurses ■
inthe wards for females. Each complainant claimed to have
seen or heard the occurrences they respectively describe.
In the worst charges investigated the alleged
acts of cruelty as they were described could only have been
committed by men and women of the most brutal instincts and
could not possibly have all been concealed from the chief
officers. The extravagance which characterized the corn-
plainants of itself made their charges practically unbeliev-
able. Any very satisfactory corroboration was lacking.
Admittedly no report or complaint was made to a physician
or the superintendent or any chief officer. The evidence
of other v/itnesses contradict these stories. The doctors
and chief officers swore that none of them ever heard of
these brutal acts and some of them in each charge said under
oath that such treatment of a patient could not possibly
have been given without it coming to their knowledge
either from seeing it or from noticeable marks on the
patient or in the rooms or by information given.
These facts and the history, demeanour and
appearance of the various witnesses when giving evidence,
in the opinion of your Commissioner prove beyond reason-
able doubt that these charges of extreme violence and
cruelty ma&e against attendants and nurses are not true,
but are the discharged patient's amplified memory of false
impressions made on his disordered brain on seeing a
demented, refractory and violently resisting fellow-
patient fighting and struggling against being removed to
his room from amongst the other patients or being compelled
by force to undress or dress, to go to bed or get out of
bed, to take food or take a bath, or do other necessary
things against his strenuous resistance as at times had to
Complaints were received from patients that they
were put in the Asylum, though perfectly sane. Your
Commissioner did investigate any of these, being of opinion
that such cases do not come within the scope of the
investigation. Your Commissioner would suggest that,
hav|ng in mind the fact that persons are committed to this
Hospital for the insane on the certificate of physicians
who have not much, if any, experience in mental cases and
mistakes may occasionally be made, arrangements should be
made v/hereby an inmate who claims with any shew of reason
that he is sane would be given promptly as a matter of
right an examination by an expert in such cases and a
report made on his case to the Department-
A further suggestion is that returned soldiers
suffering from nervous disturbance due to their experience
and suffering A the war should not be sent to a Hospital
for the Insane, as long as there is a chance of this trou-
ble passing without the patient becoming actually insane.
Some place quite apart from an asylum should be provided.
Their future life, even if they are perfectly restored,
will be more or less clouded by the fact of having been in
Many complaints have been made against the p
practice of requiring the male patients to dry themselves
after coming out of a bath on used sheets which have been
slept on for a week or more. This practice has prevailed
for many years in this Hospital and was continued until
the beginning of the year 1920. It should not be allowed
to be introduced again.
Another complaint is made which your Commis-
sioner recommends should be remedied. It is the practice
of having insane criminals in the same ward with non-
criminals. As far as possible your Commissioner is of
opinion that this should be discontinued.
The specific complaints which came for investi-
gation were as follows :-
1. The case of Percy Bowerm an.
There was a complaint by the patient himself
that though not insane he was put in this Hospital at the
instance of his father. As the patient's father was
present some evidence was admitted. It shewed clearly
that the patient was properly committed and was manifestly
insane. He has been in different asylums in Eanada and
in the United States where he was allowed to go on proba-
tion. He did not suffer harsh treatment here. There
was also a complaint by the father that he was dangerous and
should not have been allowed out. It was shewn that he was
allowed out on his mother's application and Inspector
Dunlop's order on an tmdertakmiig ithat he would not remain in
2. The case of Mary Ann Hoyle at present an inmate of
Her sister Sarah H. Allott attended and claimed
that this patient who is her sister is not insane. In
her evidence she said she does not complain nor does
her sister the patient complain of any bad treatment of
any kind. The case was therefore dropped.
5. Frederick 0. Park :
This patient, a young man, was committed to
this Hospital on the 17th August 1917. He was suffering
from Gerebro-spinal syphilis in an advanced stage. He
was thirty- two years old. His father is a physician.
He was a returned soldier, returned in 1917. When in
this Hospital he could not talk rationally and in fact
could hardly talk at all and it appeared doubtful if he
recognized his relatives on all occasions. He was
removed to a private asylum in Guelph and from there in
September 1918 he was transferred to the Military Hospi-
tal in Hew Market where he died shortly after.
This patient at one time while in this Ontario
Hospital at Hamilton had a cut on his head. Later
his right eye was black as from a blow, .later his left
eye was in the same condition and later he had a black
and blue mark on his right side just below his arm said
to have been about eight inches square.
Park's father and brother seeing these bruises
and the break in the skin on his head thought he was
being abused by the attendants. The cut on his head
and the mark on one of his eyes were satisfactorily
accounted for by accidental falls. The patient's
father understood him to say that "Alec did it", in
answer to a question as to how he got a black eye. Alec
Stewart was one of the attendants. Stewart is now working at
a factory in Hamilton
and attended and in his evidence said he never struck
Park. Dr. Barnes from the Guelph private asylum and
Dr. Jaffray from the Hamilton General Hospital, who had
made an examination of this patient's blood, both said
he was violently resistant and had to be fed, put to bed
and taken out of bed, by force; that pressure of the hand
would bruise and mark his flesh as would also a slight
knock against anything in his condition and a break in
the skin v/as easily caused and would not heal. Dr. Web-
ster, to whom the patient's father spoke of these bruises,
investigated the matter with Dr. English and they con-
cluded that there was no reason to suppose they were due
to ill-treatment and they were satisfied he was being
treated carefully and properly.
Your Commissioner is of opinion that this patient
was not ill-treated by the attendant.
I slay Chalmers Smith .
This man was a patient in the Hospital for ten
months and is now out. He us under the impression he
came to the asylum of his own accord as he was suffering
from nervous breakdown and there was no better place to
go. His complaint is that he v/as "treated too much
like an insane person". He said the food was good, that
he did not get enough outdoor exercise, that he v/asnot
exactly ill-treated though an attendant once either
struck him or pushed him to go upstairs, but did not
hurt him at all* The facts are that he was regularly-
committed to the asylum on the certificate of two physi-
cians and the Police Magistrate and the Inspector's
warrant, he did not come voluntarily but was brought by
the police. He was in the habit of hiding behind doors,
Smith swore that he saw Alec Stewart, an atten-
dant, strike a patient named Denton, knocking him down and
kicking him, that he also saw Stewart .knock a patient
namedPiper dntfn and kick him when he was down, and that
he saw a patient named Lunt with a black eye which he
understood was caused by a blow given him by Stewart.
These patients were all he said violently dangerous,
Stewart was subpoenaed and gave evidence on
these charges. He said he had no trouble with Smith and
that he never had any trouble with Denton, He admitted
that he had struck Lunt, and he said he did it in self-
defence as Lunt attacked him in the bathroom and he had
to fight to save himselJ , He said Piper was a much larger
man that he is and attacked him and he was forced to fight
him to save himself. Stewart is not now employed at the
It is also true that an attendant, named William
Glover, who is still an attendant in the refractory ward
struck Lunt, knocking him down and kicked him when down.
It was on an occasion when Glover was removing Lunt from the
dining-room where he had hit another patient and started a
fight. Glover's excuse is that Lunt tried to turn back:
and get into the dining-room again and he (Glover) "lost his
head". He says it is the only time he ever struck a patient
Your Commissioner finds that it is true as charg-
ed that these two attendants, Alexander Stewart and William
Glover, did strike and kick patients as charged. It is
also the fact that none of these acts of violence were
reported to the officers in charge.
1.IRS. DOY/RIE'S case.
This complaint is that she was declared insane
by collusion between her husband and two doctors. As she has
no complaint to make as to her treatment in the Asylum no
investigation was had in her case. She is now out.
GEORGE WILLIAM HAZE1L case.
There was no formal complaint in this case but
the facts were of such a nature that it was considered well
to hear evidence. This man died suddenly in an epileptic
fit and was buried before notice of his death was given to
his wife. The body was disinterred, the coffin opened, and
he was seen and identified by his widow. The Inspector had
the body re-buried according to the wishes of the widow.
All the expenses of the funeral were paid by the Bepartment
and the widow and friends expressed satisfaction. Evidence
was taken at considerable length and accounted in a satisfac-
tory manner for the unfortunate occurrence.
MAR&ARET H. McFARLAllE case.
An anonymous letter was received in this case
complaining only of food and of the work she was required to
do. These complaints proved to have no foundation in her
CHARLOTTE HOLLXDAY case.
This ex-patient complains that she was put in
the asylum by conspiracy of leading doctors and officials in
Orangeville, though she was not insane. There is no doubt
but that nae was insane and from the nature of 1ib.e many
charges of cruelty to other patients by nurses above suspicion
of anything but kindness to patients her sanity may still be
doubted. She said the nurses always threw female patients
on their backs and dragged them along the floor by their
hair when they wanted to move these patients around. The
evidence clearly established that her charges were false,
though she very possibly believes them herself.
Your Commissioner has not the least difficulty
in arriving: at the conclusion that her testimony cannot be
seriously considered in any case she mentioned. The
evidence of many persons puts this beyond doubt.
There was no complaint here for investigation.
10. JAI.IES SCOTT Case.
There is no thin?: to report in this case.
JOHII AIIDER30K Case.
This is a returned man who was in this asylum
on different occasions. He escaped once. He speaks of his own
treatment as good upon the whole, excepting that he did not
get enough out-door exercise. He was in during the war,
and he says an attendant named W. Beaumont in the summer
or autumn of 1917 knocked him down in a contest about
possession of a new pack of cards. He says Higgins,
another returned soldier, interfered and stopped Beaumont.
Anderson says he was not "badly hurt by the blow and he did
not speak of it to any one.
Your Commission^ is of opinion Anderson's story
is correct as to this matter. He says Beaumont asked him
not to complain and he did not. Beaumont was dismissed.
He gave evidence as to brutal treatment of a
man named Jack Forbes, which one v/ardell, an attendant
since dismissed, told him had taken place. The statement
made by V/ardell was proved untrue and the case was satis-
factorily explained. All the attendants on this ward
are gone and not available as witnesses, excepting Percy B.-
Lamb who was then supervisor of ward 8 and says the story
told by War dell to Anderson was entirely false.
The most serious matter attested to by Anderson
was the brutal treatment, according to witness, of a
"red-headed foreigner" whose name he cannot give. This man
is said to have goneback to Russia. This is described in
great detail by Anderson and is of such an outrageous nature
that it could not have taken place without coming to the
knowledge of all the officials, superintendent and all, and
yet no such case as he describes came to their knowledge.
It is contradicted by Chief Slater and he, Dr. Webster and
Dr. English swear it could not have taken place as des-
cribed without coming to their knowledge. One witness was
under the impression the foreigner had died since, but
that is a mistafce. It is one of the most extreme charges
of brutal treatment which came to the knowledge of the
G. V/. Y. A. It lacks corroboration and the impossibility
of its occurrence without discovery is proved. It is a
case of mental derangement in which many patients in the
asylum imagine they hear and see things that have no ex-
istence in fact.
JOHN HENBY ANDERSON Case.
There is nothing in this caee to report.
WILLIAM RICHARDSON Case.
Thxs is not a case coming within the scope of
this investigation. Mrs. Richardson complains that she and
her family have suffered great hardship by reason of the
improper sale by the Department of her husband f s farm.
THOMAS SIDNEY KINGDON Case.
This returned soldier went Overseas in 1916
and returned in March 1918. He was regularly committed
to the asylum but he had been confined in the common Gaol
for twenty-six days before being taken to the asylum.
He was in the asylum from 12th F ebruary 1919 until 29th
April 1919. He was then let out on probation and has been
out ever since. He said "personally I had no complaint
as to my treatment while here, hut I have seen some pretty
bad beatings up". H e mentions the case of Solomon
Clayman, who Kingdon says was terribly pounded and "beaten
up" by James LIcDonald and one Norton,, two attendants, the
latter not there now. H e gives an incredible account of
these two attendants pounding this patient Clayman for a
long time, over fifteen minutes, because he would not eat.
He said he heard Clayman died three or four days after
and he added "I am convinced that the beatings he got
causeu his death". Although Kingdon says he saw all this
done he did not interfere or report it to any one. King-
don also gave evidence of Jack Stewart, a patient, having a
black: eye, which he suspected an attendant named I! or ton
gave him. Kingdon did not see it done, nor does he say
any one told him Ilorton did it. Norton is not there now,
nor available as a witness. -
ilorman Hamburg, a patient at the same time, was
called to corroborate the dayman charge. His evidence
is of such a nature that it is unbelievable. Hamburg also
neither interfered nor reported to any person
amount of evidence was given on these two cases.
The evidence of Dr. English, Chief supervisor of
attendants Slater, James LIcDonald the attendant, Etta Tully
a nurse, John Carroll a supervisor whenClayman was there,
Mrs. Elizabeth Stewart and Mrs. Sophia Morris, clears up
these two cases and prove facts which account for Kingdon 1 s
impression of what happened in each case. dayman made
determined efforts to commit suicide by pounding his head
on the floor and walls to knock his brains out. These
efforts were defeated by various devices used in such
cases. He died a natural death from his disease and not
from blows or violence.
LORA MAY ROGERS Case.
Nothing was proved in this case requiring comment.
The complainant was served with a subpoena to attend this
investigation and was paid her railway fare to Hamilton and
return and her witness fees. She said she would not attend
and she did not. She followed the man who served the sub-
poena and paid her the money to the Railway station and
tried to induce him to take the subpoena and the money
from her hut he refused to do so. The case was satisfac-
torily explained by the evidence given.
16. WILLIAL1 A. WILSON Case.
This is a returned soldier. He had a bruise on
his shin which he told his wife was caused by an atten-
dant kicking him. Mrs. Wilson spoke to Dr. Webster
about this. He is described as a dangerous irritable
patient and at times has to be restrained by force.
Dr. English and Dr. V/ebster investigated this complaint
and came to the conclusion that the attendant had not
kicked him but that he had got the bruise by accidentally
striking something when being restrained when in one of
his violent fits. His wife says she does not like
leaving him in Ward 8, the refractory ward. She says he
is not very insane now but that he cannot be given his
liberty or he will* wander away aimlessly. She says she
thinks he will become quite insane if kept where he is
and he thinks the same. She, like many others, thinks
a returned soldier should be in a place specially suited
to his condition and not in an insane asylum.
17. JOHN HEWS OH Case.
This man is an ex-attendant and made one charge
of abuse of a pateent which the evidence proved satis-
f actor ily was not true. His statements were in your
Commissioner's opinion to a certain extent animated by
a desire to "get back at " an attendant.
H e complained that the the rations were cut
down at one time and he also complained of requiring
the male patients to dry themselves after their bath on
sheets taken off the beds after having been used a week
or more. Both of these complaints have been remarked
upon in the early part of this report.
Mis. EDITH I. PARISH
This woman was a patient in this Asylum. S'jje
was regularly admitted on the 23rd of May 1914 and
finally discharged on 9th October 1918. She had been
confined in an Asylum for the insane in England. She
made many charges in a letter to the G. W. V. A. and in
an affidavit of ill-treatment of herself and patients,
and of insufficient use of disinfectants in cases of
typhoid fever patiBjlfcs and in a case of erysipelas .
She was subpoenaed and paid her railway fare and witness
fees but she refused to come. Every effort was made to
secure her attendance. She threatened to hare her
solicitor get an injunction to stop the investigation
of the charges she had made. It was proved by convinc-
ing evidence that many of her statements were false and
others grossly exaggerated.
The representatives of the G. W. V. A. after
hearing and seeing some of the witnesses called said
they were convinced that no reliance could be placed
on her statements and suggested that it was unnecessary
to continue the investigation of them.
Your Commissioner, however, at request of
Counsel and of the Superintendent heard evidence offered
as to ivi rs. Parker's history and as to all her complaints.
Your Commissioner at the request of the Great
War Veterans forwards in connection with this report the
very excellent report and suggestions which they make as the
result of their observations and of their opinions formed
from the evidence, statements, explanations and discussions
which took place at the investigation.
Your Commissioner in the early part of this
report dealt with some only of these matters recommended
by the Great War Veterans Association before he had the
opportunity of reading their report.
Your Commissioner now desires to add that he
approves of the first, second, third, seventh, sixteenth
and the first part of the eighteenth recommendations which
they make. Of the others some are now in practice while
of others your Commissioner does not feel in a position to
Your Commissioner desires to express his
appreciation of the skilful, fair and persistent work
of Mr. S. F. Washington E. C. in conducting the examinations.
To his efforts and the valuable assistance given him by Messrs
Fred V/. Tresham and Dugald Mclean representing the Central
Branch G. W. V. A., Mr. Frank Bryant representing the East
End Branch G. ./. V. A., Messrs John Fish and Hugh Arnold
representing the Mount Hamilton Branch G. »/. V. A. and by Mr.
J. L. Counsell engaged by the G. W. V. A. to assist Mr.
./ashington, is due the securing and fair and full presentation
of all available evidence on the various charges, complaints
and matters which were investigated.
All of which together with a copy of the evidence taken
your Co^rrassioner has the honour to respectfull;; submit.
Dated this 1st Day of March A. D. 1920.